Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/393,851

ICE PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR AN AIRCRAFT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 22, 2023
Examiner
O'HARA, BRIAN M
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Boeing Company
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
447 granted / 594 resolved
+23.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
610
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 594 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Layland (US 7923668 B2). Examiner has provided an annotated version of Layland as an appendix with highlighting in the spec and wording on Fig. 17A in the previous office action. Regarding Claims 11-13, 16-19, and 22, Layland discloses (largely in Fig. 17a): 11. An aircraft comprising: a propulsion system including a nacelle (1000) having an inlet cowl (800), wherein the inlet cowl comprises an acoustic layer (120) coupled to an ice protection system, wherein the ice protection system comprises: heating layer (14) including perforations (30) extending from a first surface to a second surface opposite from the first surface, wherein the perforations provide acoustic paths, wherein the heating layer is configured to provide (via attachment at 80) electrically resistive heating to nacelle, and wherein the heating layer comprises: a dielectric layer (60/62); a conductive heater (50) coupled to the dielectric layer; and a first film (82, 182, “adhesive material 82 may be strips of FM-300 epoxy adhesive film”; Col 14 Line 38) disposed over the conductive heater. 12. The aircraft of claim 11, wherein the perforations extend to the acoustic layer (“through entire thickness of the heater”; Col 12 Line 42). 13. The aircraft of claim 12, wherein the heating layer overlays (see Fig. 17A) at least a portion of the acoustic layer. 16. The aircraft of claim 15, wherein the dielectric layer comprises fiberglass (“glass fabric”; Col 14 Line 28). 17. The aircraft of claim 15, wherein the first film is a nickel chemical vapor deposition film (“nickel coated graphite fiber”; see other publications at the end of page 2) 18. The aircraft of claim 15, wherein the perforations extend through the dielectric layer, the conductive heater, and the one first film (See Fig. 15, and “through entire thickness of the heater”; Col 12 Line 42). 19. The aircraft of claim 15, wherein the dielectric layer, the conductive heater, and the first film are laminated together (“laminated composite construction of a heater portion”; Col 13 Line 15). 22. (New) The aircraft of claim 11, further comprising a second film (184) disposed over the heating layer. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10 and 21 are rejected using the same elements from Layland as mapped above. Regarding Claim 20, Layland further discloses a method of forming perforations (“openings 30 may be formed by mechanical drilling”; Col 16 Line 40) and coupling (1310) the heating layer to the acoustic layer. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layland as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Maheshwari (US 8549832 B2). Layland teaches using carbon fibers (“carbon-based material such as graphite fibers”; Col 13 Line 44). Maheshwari teaches a similar heater for a nacelle (30) with carbon nanotubes (“nonwoven textile (NWT) or woven textile (WT) of carbon nanotubes”; Col 5 Line 9-11). At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the graphite fibers of Layland as carbon nanotubes in view of the teaching of Maheshwari. The motivation for doing so would have been greater thermal output as taught by Maheshwari in Col 5 Line 47. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5 Lines 11-13, filed 09/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) amended claims 1, 11, and 20 under 102(a)(1) to Layland have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Layland. The examiner mixed up elements 82 and 40 which are both in Fig. 17A. Element 82 is now being used in the rejection above. As explained 82 is an adhesive strip in the form of a film. Further in Fig. 17B, 182 and 184 is a film on both sides of the heater. Applicant’s arguments regarding the nickel deposition at the end of Page 5 are not found persuasive. Layland incorporates a reference R.E. Evans, D.E. Hall and B.A. Luxon, Nickel Coated Graphite Fiber Conductive Composites, SAMPE Quarterly, vol. 17, No. 4, Jul. 1986. This is listed at the end of the references cited. The newly amended claims 4 and 14 directed to carbon nanotubes are now rejected under 103 with a newly cited reference. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BRIAN M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 22, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12570398
MULTIPLE FLIGHT MODE AIRCRAFT ARCHITECTURES AND CONTROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552526
ROTOR CONTROL FOR A CONVERTIBLE AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552291
SAFETY SEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545431
HEALTH MONITORING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12545439
TILT DRIVE FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE VECTORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+20.0%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 594 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month